Not really an "if" but a fact. The 98 RON is = 94/93 RON+MON octane used in US. Anyway, I don't care if I lose to anyone b/c there will always be someone faster. I've got a slow azz 63.

 

Nobody told the winner anything , this was a street race? WTF are you talking about, post after post of fantasy qoutes and non sensical analogies.


I simply learn from each race, in 100% of my loses it is not my 63 that caused it IT IS ME!

I bracket race it is a test of the driver, I drive a 500 hp car cause it is fun.

Physics is a B*tch Mr. Baldwin just as Meteorology can be, you must understand both as well as hundreds of other factors to be a successful drag racer. My car HAS NEVER COST ME A RACE, its my failure to run the car or understand what it needs and does not.

Why you hate on the 63 and the owners is another question.

When a 55 posts a track time , you are quick to hop in the thread with your

"....much respect"

Ted

When a 63 makes a good pass you are SILENT

You glued your fingers and failed to type anything when MACHC5 hit 118.70 in his 63
or when Oldgixxer hit 12.12 in the 1/4 mile. You had nothing to post? Now as soon as another "Oh I am selling my 63 thread comes" you are right in the middle with your daily 63 affirmations . Please stop disrespecting what AMG drivers are doing, we are trying to improve and go faster, no excuses, this applies to ALL MERCEDES cars and is not model specific. Having too low an octane is not an excuse ITS A PHYSICAL FACT.

If your going to critisize and have a laugh over "excuses for a loss" than stop focusing on JUST THE 63, we all have excuses it a HUMAN ASPECT of life and has ZERO to do with the car you drive.


In this case all one needed to do is look at the weights of the two Mercedes Models

500-700 lbs is not insignificant. Having the wrong fuel is not insignificant. 63 drivers must use 93, and it certainly helps the 55 up top in my experience. One car traps 117 the other 112..Same day same track you figure it out.

We are a family and I encourage everyone to race legally on a track and enjoy your car regardless of what it is badged. To all my 55 brothers who have run alongside me, are you laughing at the 63?

 

This got interesting all of a sudden.

 

I didn't comment on any race. I'm simply stating that the 63 engine is tuned for 93 octane.

I don't get the olympic athlete comment Everywhere else in the world, the 93 to 95 octane gas is abudant. So the car would be fine everywhere else in the world except in the few places where performance decreases due to fuel. Heck, even here in the United States, 93 is everywhere except one state, here in California. As a result, I don't expect Mercedes to make a separate tune for one state?

Your comment should've been like this: "It will be like an olympic athlete that can only lose a race in Mars, but not on earth. He then tells his rival.... 'hey men, if we went to Mars to race, I'll lose to you' "

 

..... wow what happen here became a war about octane.

You guys need to chill.

 

I've looked around at various publications including drag times, http://www.dragtimes.com/

I don't see any difference between 55's and 63's in both 1/4 mile and 0-60. In fact stock cars gernerally do better and the modified carls like Renntech test WORSE times.

Variables including driver’s ability make all the difference.

The CL63 is more than one generation apart and is totally state of the art in all important areas like mechanical, software, style, and comfort. So any meaningful comparison would favor the 216 unless you're a knucklehead.

 

Originally Posted by NY_SG
"Wasnt raining last night it was about 12.30am at olympic and overland and it wasnt me. I was just a passenger.

Should be my friend loves cars treats them like baby. Retarded I say. So ya he is getting rid of the CL currently in the process.

But I mean ya I was shocked that the 55 beat the 63. I was like errr what just happen dude. And he was like I dont know man. HAHAHA "

so you asked what happened. I explained it is due to the weight of the cars,

others said perhaps it was Octane. Mr. Ted Baldwin chimes in that 63 owners are comical and full of excuses when all many here did was point out Physical facts.

If your buddy wanted the fastest Benz he erred, thats a hella sexy auto but its not gonna put the hammer in a straight line on a 500 lb lighter similar hp vehicle. For you and For TED, its called P/W it is used in classification.

CL 63 is P/w=10
S55 P/w=9.2

The lower number the BETTER

 

Unfortunately the OP compared the CL to the S not a CL to CL comparison, plus it was an impromptu STREET RACE.

I agree similarly weighted cars, CL55 CL63 will be similar in a straight line.

 

No need to chill. The 63 guys are just standing up for what they know. No worries and no one will get hurt here. It's just a war of words and look what happened; they proved that the 63 engines DO require 93 octane. I didn't know that.
Personally, as an AMG owner, I may compete against other AMG Models, but in the end, I appreciate and respect All AMGs. I don’t think I’m alone on this one and hell, I’m one that talks a lot of BS!

 

Maybe I am confused. Looks to me like the car in the left lane (E55) catches and passes the car in the right. Am I the only one seeing this?

FYI - When I set my record, I did it on 92 octane because 93 wasn't available.

 

Mo pointed out that AMG confirmed the 63 is the first motor that is tuned specifically for 93. M113 5.5 ML is tuned for 91 so maybe you should try running 91?

The E55 did seem to pass but the CL held it off for 90% of the run, no beam to cross on this one..

 

E55 was tuned for 91 from factory, so using 92 helped you due to adaptive nature. If you use the higher octane, the ECU adapts to some degree to increase power (slightly). Similarly, if you use low octane, the ECU adapts to rob you out of power (slightly) except that pushing the car hard repeatedly on low octane may damage the engine.

Enzom, you should try a mix of 100 octane and 92 to try to land at 93 or 94 octane. You should see even better results

 

I run with 93 octane every day. The closest gas station to Atco only sells 92. (I have found no benefit at all in running 100 octane except that my wallet is much lighter - so there is a weight savings.) The point I was making in bringing up the octane is that my best time was run on 92 octane, not on the 93 I run on most of the time. Whatever theoretical incremental hp increase there might be running 93 vs. 92 on my car was not present that day. The best I managed on 93 octane was a measly 11.801.

 

63 is a great engine it just so happens there are better options to me. like the 600. I have smoked 2 separate cl63's. (with my 600) one was my buddy (sorda) who has since traded it in on m6 convertible..
the 63 sure are cooler looking though!
just my .02. I had an e55 as well and after driving an e63 about 100 miles I opted not to get it. the so called butt dyno felt slower and the power was not where i wanted it. it was too high.
anyways just some thoughts from a e55k owner and current CL600 owner.

 

Ted seriously man a 552 lb 250kg difference is not weighing the "SAME" not even close. Add a passenger and your going to get raped. Whats absurd is you post things so matter of fact yet could not be further from the truth.

W216 is 4587 lbs CURB WEIGHT
W220 is 4035 lbs CURB WEIGHT

 

You ran your record time at ATCO, you also achieved an 11.801 and 11.805 same day at ATCO. What day was your 93 octane run at ATCO also duplicating your 11.801 on the 92. You actually ran a best of 11.83 on 12/14 according to your post below



I would bet a large chunk of money had you pulled a 1.71 60ft time on 12/14 you would have easily broken your record ET and Trap. Car would have hit low11.71-11.75@118.77-119.38 had you obtained traction. Octane likely does not help or hurt your car when it is within range of the ECU tune. Use 89 and you will not see any record runs. This is what the 63's are forced to do in States where 93 is not available. 91 is two points lower so the equivalant octane for you would be 89 not 92 if you wish to draw a performance comparison.

 

I though S class weighted the most lol.

CL63 5k Pounds wtf?

Why is it so heavy? It isnt that big... or is it?

 

Guess all the AMG extras, the new S63 is actually a little heavier still.

The 08 63's in the CL and S are much heavier than the previous models.

Across all model lines looks like the 63 is heavier,

 

Juicee -

At the November rental, I started with 93 Octane and ran in the 11.8's. Fuel light went on. Made another run or two and headed to the nearest gas station to avoid running out of gas (S'up, Gixxer? ). Came back and ran 11.775.

A month later, I ran with 93 octane. Because the gas station at the track was open, I put 20 bucks of 100 Octane in there, followed by another 20. So I was running with at least 93 octane and probably more. The 11.834 (or 11.854) that I ran that day was my best for that day. I ran a 1.732 60' on that run, which is not far off my 1.71 from my November 11.775 run. If my fuel situation were reversed, I might argue that the only reason that I "lost" 0.06 seconds and about 1 mph on a cooler day with a much more favorable DA and very similar 60' times was because of my lower octane. But that isn't the case.

Point here is that, at least in my experience, more octane does not equal better e/t's on a bone stock 55. I can't speak for the 63, but I don't think you would lose 3/10th on 2 points of octane alone. Try an experiment next time you guys hit the track. One of you run racing gas/91 in the morning, the other run pure 91 octane. Then switch fuels and see what it looks like at the end of the day. Should be interesting.

 

Enzom, we actually already tried that experiment the time before last time at Fontana. I ran 100% 91 octane gas and my car repeatedly trapped 109 to 111 mph. Then I added 100 octane to the mix, and my car trapped 111 to 113 mph. I then repeated the same experiment at Sacramento because I wanted to test the theory under good DA. And again, my car trapped higher on higher octane. At Sacramento, the difference was more dramatic: my car went from low 112 to high 114s

Also, Mercedes/AMG themselves confirmed that 63 models require a minimum of 93 octane for maximum performance.

 

I agree 100 will not do anything unless your car is tuned for it. I think the wind on 12/14 may have also hindered your runs.

I refuse to ever use 91 on the track again, we have done the 91 runs and its really bad for trap speed, ET is not as effected but trap speed drops 2-3 mph.

My car on 91 ran 12.30's @113 on 93 (100 mixed with 91) 12.1-12.2@115.60's

Your 55 truly amazes me, I wish you all the best at your next rental, use what worked for you. BTW a 1.73 vs a 1.71 is worth 4x as much by the end of the run so that is 8/100ths nearly 1/10 so an 11.834-.08= 11.754

Your 60ft is the most important , this is why you have the fastest stock 55 on the planet, its all in your 60ft.

 

I'm with you Havoc. How can anyone resent another AMG model just because its 1/10th slower over the 1/4 or not as easy to mod etc. That’s such a schoolboy **** I don’t get that.

Question...... is 98ron hard to find in US or is it too expensive? I always use 98ron in Australia and 100ron whenever I find a garage that’s selling it. To me it is sacrilege to use a lesser grade fuel in a performance car. Thats pollution of the fuel tank!

 

The fuel is available all overthe USA except in some Western States.

The California cars with big N/A motors Z06 included suffer due to the 91 max octane at the pump. 91 is Premium here and it really slows many of the cars especially the guys who really go WOT alot.. There are "race" gas pumps with a 100 octane rating so you can spend 8.50/gallon and mix it.

AMG has commented to members here that tracking the 63 on 91 could DAMAGE the engine!

Thanks for sharing your opinion as I know the folks down Under KNOW Cars

 

Juicee:

I think you are off base on this one. The CL63 weighs about 300lbs more than a CL55 (about 4,250lbs). The S55 weighs only about 50lbs more than the CL55. I am not sure it makes much difference for the comparison. I think the 55 engines were better suited for the heavier cars in the AMG lineup. That doesn't mean that I am trashing the 63 engine...which is a technological marvel in its own right. The 63 is just slightly less suited for moving such mass. The freer reving 63 engine is much better suited for a lighter ...more sporty car (CLK BS is a perfect fit).

Tom

 

I've posted on this before but in anther section. Just like our gallons are smaller our RON is different too. Our 93 is the same as your 97/98. Unfortunately in L.A. (land of the frigging car) we can only get 91, which is 95 RON in your money. The S85 engine is certainly one that would react well to 93 but there's only one garage that sells it.

Juicee, where's it at? Somewhere on Pico?